代寫 > 加拿大作業代寫 > >

最好的加拿大作業代寫

A Model for Sustainability Reporting  代寫

A Model for Sustainability Reporting 代寫

This article is based on a study supported by the IMA® Foundation for Applied Research (FAR).
By Susan C. Borkowski, Mary Jeanne Welsh, and Kristin Wentzel
JOHNSON & JOHNSON:
A Model for
Sustainability
Reporting
COVER STORY
A Model for Sustainability Reporting  代寫
September 2010 I STRATEGIC FINANCE 29
A
s an accountant or financial professional, you’ve
probably heard lots lately about sustainability
reporting. The concept, which is relatively new
and gaining wider acceptance, refers to how
firms handle nonfinancial factors related to environmen-
tal, social, and governance issues that potentially impact
the company’s future performance, income, and value.
Viewed as a companion to financial reporting, the
increased use of sustainability reports (SRs, for short)
symbolizes the ever-growing demand by stakeholders for
more transparency and accountability.
A Model for Sustainability Reporting  代寫
A Statement on Management Accounting (SMA), The
Evolution of Accountability—Sustainability Reporting for
Accountants, issued by IMA® in 2008, details the evolu-
tion of sustainability reporting. Recognizing that this
phenomenon is still in its “infancy,”IMA observed that
“while some organizations…are leading the way, many
are either ignoring the issues, have not yet made a start,
or are trying to figure out what to do, how to do it, and
how to take action in a way that adds value.”
Toward that end, to provide guidance for nonreporting
or newly reporting firms, we conducted a case study of a
publicly traded company at the forefront of sustainability
reporting: Johnson & Johnson. Based in New Brunswick,
N.J., and employing approximately 119,000 people world-
wide, J&J began issuing formal sustainability reports in
1993 for which it has received widespread praise over the
years. Using both content analysis and interviews with
company executives, we reviewed Johnson & Johnson’s
trend toward broadening its sustainability reporting in
ways that increase both value and transparency, with the
purpose of providing a framework for other firms to
model.
How Sustainability Reporting
Came About
Sustainability reporting includes terms such as corporate
social responsibility (CSR), environmental reporting, and
triple bottom line, although a 2008 website examination
of the Global 100 Most Sustainable Companies revealed
that “sustainability”was the term they used most fre-
quently. Sustainability encompasses a wide range of cor-
porate initiatives related to issues such as environmental
impacts, employee programs for healthier living, commu-
nity development programs, customer safety programs,
and fair trade practices. Multiple stakeholders—including
socially responsible investors, consumers who want
“green”products, and community groups concerned
A Model for Sustainability Reporting  代寫
about environmental impacts—show growing interest in
these issues. As evidence of this trend, professionally
managed assets invested with a social responsibility focus
have grown dramatically, with IMA reporting that social-
ly responsible investments in the United States increased
from $639 billion in 1995 to $2.29 trillion in 2005.
Though SRs lack reporting standards analogous to
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP),
efforts to establish standards for sustainability reporting
are ongoing. In 1997, the Boston-based nonprofit
CERES (Coalition for Environmentally Responsible
Economies) started a Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
joined as a partner in 1999, the same year that an expo-
sure draft of GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines was
released. In 2002, CERES set up the GRI as an indepen-
dent body with a mission to “integrate and unify the
many standards in the marketplace into a single, gener-
ally accepted sustainability reporting framework,
encompassing environmental, social, and economic per-
formance.” The GRI released its first reporting frame-
work and guidelines in 2000, its G2 revision in 2002,
and its current iteration, G3, in 2006. (For more infor-
mation, go to www.globalreporting.org.)
The G3 guidelines, which the GRI says more than 1,500
companies worldwide have voluntarily adopted, set out
core content for sustainability reports. Part 1 covers report-
ing principles, including materiality, stakeholder inclusive-
ness, sustainability context, and completeness. Part 2 covers
standard disclosures in three areas that should be included
in a sustainability report: strategy and profile, management
approach, and performance indicators.
A Model for Sustainability Reporting  代寫
There’s no regulation requiring U.S. companies to pro-
vide stand-alone sustainability reports, but the trend to
provide these disclosures is definitely growing. Though
30 STRATEGIC FINANCE I September 2010
COVER STORY
Though only 32% of the top
100 U.S. companies in terms
of revenue that were surveyed
in 2005 issued stand-alone
sustainability reports, the
reporting rate increased to
73% by 2008.
September 2010 I STRATEGIC FINANCE 31
Table 1: Johnson & Johnson’s Sustainability Reports, 1993–2008
2008 2007 2006 2005
Title of report Sustainability Report Sustainability Report Sustainability Report Sustainability Report
Catchphrase Caring for the world… Profiles in Passion, performance, Engaging more people,
one person at a time commitment possibilities preserving the planet
Number of pages 38 45 36 52
Location of credo Back cover Back cover p. ii p. 2
2004 2003 2002 2001
Title of report Sustainability Report Sustainability Report Environmental, Environmental,
Health and Safety Health and Safety
Sustainability Report Sustainability Report
Catchphrase Living our credo Healthy people, Healthy people, Healthy people,
healthy planet, healthy planet healthy planet
healthy futures
Number of pages 44 50 34 34
Location of credo p. 7 Back cover Back cover Back cover
2000 1999 1998 1996
A Model for Sustainability Reporting  代寫
Title of report Environmental, Environmental, Environmental, Sustaining Our
Health and Safety Health and  Health and Worldwide Environmental
Sustainability Report Safety Report Safety Report Commitment
Catchphrase Healthy people, Healthy people, n/a Sustaining our
healthy planet healthy planet worldwide environmental
commitment
Number of pages 30 18 39 24
Location of credo Back cover Back cover p. 2 Not included
1993
Title of report A Special
Responsibility
Catchphrase A Special
Responsibility
Number of pages 31
Location of credo Not included
only 32% of the top 100 U.S. companies in terms of rev-
enue that were surveyed in 2005 issued stand-alone sus-
tainability reports, the reporting rate increased to 73% by
2008, according to KPMG. IMA recognizes Johnson &
Johnson as a “leading organization”in this growing trend
for social accountability.
For this article, we conducted interviews with two
executives who hold key roles in the preparation of J&J’s
sustainability reports: Brian Boyd, worldwide vice-
president for Environmental, Health and Safety, and
Elizabeth (Tish) Lascelle, then senior director, Environ-
mental, Health and Safety Strategy and Assurance. We
also analyzed the company’s SRs from inception using
robust content-analysis techniques. Overall, our findings
show how sustainability reporting has evolved at Johnson
& Johnson to become fully integrated with its culture and
mission.
A Model for Sustainability Reporting  代寫
Sustainability Reporting at J&J
Johnson & Johnson has a relatively long history of sus-
tainability reporting compared to most U.S. companies.
It first began setting environmental goals in 1990. Public
reports followed in 1993 and 1996, with annual SRs
beginning in 1998. The early reports focused primarily
on environmental issues and employed “Environmental,
Health and Safety” in the title. By 2003, however, John-
son & Johnson’s sustainability reporting efforts had
clearly broadened and evolved into what was then
renamed the “Sustainability Report.” Our word count
analysis shows a roughly fourfold increase in the length
of these reports, suggesting that the content and topics
covered expanded dramatically over the years. Table 1
presents a summary of J&J’s 13 sustainability reports
from 1993 through 2008.
According to Brian Boyd, who was responsible for the
sustainability reporting process from 1999 until 2008,
when it moved to Corporate Communications, the over-
riding reason Johnson & Johnson publishes SRs is to
engage with external shareholders. The purpose is
twofold:
A Model for Sustainability Reporting  代寫
1. To detail what Johnson & Johnson is doing with
regard to sustainability issues and what the firm’s
strategies are, and
2. To engage stakeholders in the process by sharing
information.
Boyd speculates that one of the primary drivers of the
early reporting initiatives included increased demand
from external stakeholders for information about the
company’s environmental policies. This supports prior
research suggesting that voluntary SRs reduce informa-
tion asymmetry between firms and the public. Overall,
Johnson & Johnson produces SRs for the full range of its
stakeholders, from the neighbor living near a manufac-
turing plant to the global investment community.
Why Report?
Sustainability reporting remains voluntary, but research
suggests two distinct theories on why firms do it: ethical
vs. economic. Ethical views purport that firms hold soci-
etal and moral obligations to engage in socially responsi-
ble activities and thus report on these activities because
it’s the “right thing to do.”Economic theories, on the oth-
er hand, assert that sustainability reports create better
corporate reputations that, in turn, create shareholder
wealth via increased profits.
Our interviews at Johnson & Johnson lend credence to
both views. For instance, the firm’s corporate culture is
strongly rooted in its credo, which challenges internal
decision makers “to put the needs and well-being of the
people we serve first”(http://www.jnj.com/connect/
about-jnj/jnj-credo). Robert Wood Johnson, former
A Model for Sustainability Reporting  代寫
chairman of the company and one of its founders, crafted
the credo in 1943,prior to J&J going public and long
before anyone used the term “corporate social responsi-
bility.”The company’s website explains:“Our Credo is
more than just a moral compass. We believe it’s a recipe
for business success. The fact that Johnson & Johnson is
one of only a handful of companies that have flourished
through more than a century of change is proof of that.”
Our review of Johnson & Johnson’s SRs reveals contin-
uing specific references to the credo and the company’s
responsibilities to its four groups of stakeholders, in this
order: customers (including doctors, nurses, patients,
parents, consumers, suppliers, and distributors), employ-
ees, the community (both local and global), and, finally,
32 STRATEGIC FINANCE I September 2010
COVER STORY
shareholders. J&J management believes that if the needs
of the first three groups of stakeholders are met, then a
fair profit should accrue to investors, hence supporting
the economic theory for producing SRs. Table 2 shows
how the emphasis on each group of stakeholders has
shifted over the years.
Brian Boyd acknowledged a number of benefits of the
company’s sustainability reporting, although he admits
that they aren’t necessarily financial. In other words,
while there’s no straight line connecting SR activities to
cost savings, intangible benefits often follow. For instance,
in the absence of information, many people will assume
the worst about a company’s environmental, health, and
safety activities. By producing one comprehensive SR
annually, Johnson & Johnson satisfies the information
needs of many stakeholders, in addition to its credo
A Model for Sustainability Reporting  代寫
September 2010 I STRATEGIC FINANCE 33
Table 2: Changes in Stakeholder Coverage, Content, and Tone
TOTAL PARAGRAPHS = 2,783 EARLY REPORTS MIDDLE REPORTS NEWEST REPORTS CHANGE FROM EARLY
(1993 – 1999) (2000-2003) (2004-2008) TO NEWEST REPORTS
510 PARAGRAPHS 974 PARAGRAPHS 1,299 PARAGRAPHS
STAKEHOLDER COVERAGE*
Customers 2.2% 2.0% 13.2% + 501.9%
Employees 30.6% 37.8% 21.0% – 31.3%
Community 28.2% 21.2% 20.7% – 26.6%
Investors 0.0% 0.3% 2.5% n/a
Two or more groups 16.7% 19.4% 34.1% + 104.2%
No specific focus 22.3% 19.3% 7.9% – 64.4%
PARAGRAPH CONTENT*
Community issues 8.4% 13.5% 15.7% + 87.0%
HR/Diversity issues 2.5% 5.4% 5.9% + 137.1%
Environmental issues 57.7% 31.3% 30.6% – 47.0%
General content 8.0% 18.6% 20.3% + 153.1%
Health & safety issues 22.4% 29.0% 11.7% – 47.8%
Supply chain issues 1.0% 2.2% 15.9% + 1,485.8%
PARAGRAPH TONE*
Positive  93.1%  84.1%  85.0%  – 8.7%
A Model for Sustainability Reporting  代寫
Negative  2.2%  4.2%  2.8%  + 26.0%
Neutral  4.7%  11.7%  12.2%  + 160.4%
*Chi-square significant at a = .0001.
stakeholders. The advocacy community, for
instance, wants to know what large com-
panies are doing, and SRs can encourage
discussion. They also provide informa-
tion to agencies that rate companies
based on their sustainability activities.
Those ratings, in turn, influence finan-
cial analysts’ recommendations and
investors’ decisions. Examples of ratings
and agencies include the Dow Jones Sus-
tainability Index (DJSI), the FTSE4Good Index,
and Innovest Strategic Value Advisors.
The reporting process also mitigates risk. A 1997 study
by Tom Brown and Peter Dacin,“The Company and the
Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product
Responses,”found that negative perceptions regarding
corporate social responsibility produce negative effects on
consumer behavior, and vice versa. Boyd points out that
SRs reduce the possibility that a nongovernmental orga-
nization (NGO) will launch a negative ad campaign on
an issue. A negative campaign could cascade into reduced
sales and decreased profits, thereby lending support to
economic reasons for reporting.
Who’s Responsible for
Sustainability Reporting?
A Model for Sustainability Reporting  代寫
Numerous functional groups participate in J&J’s sustain-
ability reporting process, including Worldwide Environ-
mental, Health and Safety, Corporate Contributions,
Corporate Communications, Investor Relations, Procure-
ment,Worldwide Operations, Human Resources, and oth-
er relevant business unit leaders. For example,
if the sustainability report contains a story
on the company’s HIV pharmaceutical
advances, that business unit leader has
participated in that part of the discus-
sion and reporting process.
Management accountants and
finance professionals also participate in
Johnson & Johnson’s reporting process
since they’re in a position to manage and
measure key components of the report.
Although much of the financial data in the SRs comes
directly from the current year’s annual report, accounting
and finance staff also contribute information that isn’t
readily available from it. They address questions about
how financial information should be reported to reflect
Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations
and other reporting guidelines and requirements.
Interestingly, there are no specific systems in place at
Johnson & Johnson to provide data for the SR. Each
function leader uses his or her own internal systems to
collect and report relevant data to the project leader, with
Human Resources being the exception. HR is included to
validate the SR process but not necessarily to provide
data for the report. J&J also lacks a formal policy regard-
ing confidentiality, instead relying on the judgment of
function heads to avoid the release of any data that’s sen-
sitive in a competitive, legal, or business context. While
Boyd has argued for greater transparency in the SR
process, some function leaders are uncomfortable with
that view.
As mentioned earlier, J&J’s Corporate Communica-
tions department now produces the sustainability reports
along with the annual reports, collecting data from the
respective function heads, who identify the relevant issues
in their departments. The group of 10 or so function
leaders, including Boyd, continues to meet during the
process.
What Goes into the Report?
In general, Johnson & Johnson produces its reports in
accordance with GRI guidelines, with the more recent
SRs providing a key at the end of the report that refer-
ences the GRI codes. Our content analysis suggests that
the amount and type of information reported has
changed significantly over the years, reflecting J&J’s own
internal struggle to determine what should be reported—
and in what quantity and depth—to satisfy its responsi-
bilities as defined by its credo and by external validating
34 STRATEGIC FINANCE I September 2010
Interestingly, there are no
specific systems in place at
Johnson & Johnson to provide
data for the SR. Each function
leader uses his or her own
internal systems to collect
and report relevant data to
the project leader...
COVER STORY
organizations and outside agencies. For example, weA Model for Sustainability Reporting  代寫
found that both employee health indicators (tobacco use,
high cholesterol, inactivity, and such) and economic fac-
tors (sales revenue, net earnings, share price, and the like)
appeared more frequently in recent reports, while the
number of employee safety factors (fleet car accidents,
lost workdays, and such) remained largely consistent
throughout the time frame. Table 3 summarizes the evo-
lution of the content of Johnson & Johnson’s 13 SRs,
including the economic, employee health, employee safe-
ty, and environmental indicators reported from 1993
through 2008. (Details about each set of indicators are
available from any of the authors; see the end of the arti-
cle for their contact information.)
External forces also influence content. Boyd explained
that when competitors started reporting certain index
line items, J&J chose to include the same metrics, even
though they’re of no use or benefit to the company.Yet
September 2010 I STRATEGIC FINANCE 35
Table 3: Characteristics of Johnson & Johnson’s
Sustainability Reports, 1993–2008
2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
Number of awards/recognitions 25 18 14 16 19 22 21
Number of organizational partners 18 n/a 6 13 20 20 20
Organizational chart included No No No No Yes Yes Yes
Indicators presented in tables and/or graphs
A Model for Sustainability Reporting  代寫
Economic  11 9 9 4 5 5 1
Employee health  4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Employee safety  2 4 5 5 5 5 5
Environmental 11 10 9 12 13 12 17
Total indicators 28 27 27 25 27 26 27
2001 2000 1999 1998 1996 1993
Number of awards/recognitions 18 14 7 27 4 0
Number of organizational partners 18 17 0 14 10 13
Organizational chart included Yes Yes No Yes Yes No
Indicators presented in tables and/or graphs
Economic  1 3 4 4 4 2
Employee health  4 0 3 0 0 0
Employee safety  5 5 5 5 0 0
Environmental 16 12 10 11 7 10
Total indicators 26 20 22 20 11 12
the DJSI requires certain metrics when ranking compa-
nies that even now Johnson & Johnson feels aren’t
important to report. As a result, Boyd says, the company
receives a lower ranking on the DJSI because it chooses
to measure and manage what’s vital to itself and to its
stakeholders rather than what’s important to rating
agencies.
While the GRI indicator list doesn’t drive the content
of Johnson & Johnson’s SRs, it helps the company coordi-
nate what’s reported and provides consistency from year
to year. What J&J wants to manage comes from its strate-
gy, credo, and stakeholders, suggesting that a clear mis-
sion statement aids corporate sustainability reporting.
Boyd feels that Johnson & Johnson is ahead of the sus-
tainability reporting curve because it stays true to its cre-
do and because it closely monitors global trends in what
data is reported worldwide, not just in the pharmaceuti-
cal industry or in the U.S. For example, the company
began reporting on carbon emissions before there was
much public push for the information.
Use of External Assurance
Because of fears of internal bias, some advocates for
transparency argue for independent third-party assur-
ance, citing research that finds sustainability reports tend
to focus on positive outcomes and that descriptive infor-
mation rarely accompanies benchmark data. Our content
analysis supports this finding. We coded each paragraph
of Johnson & Johnson’s SRs as positive, negative, or neu-
tral and found that positive information dramatically
outweighed negative or neutral information (see Table 2).
Over the past 15 years, however—perhaps in response to
external pressures—changes in tone have been signifi-
cant: Positive coverage has decreased about 9%, while
negative and neutral coverage has increased 26% and
160%, respectively.
The Global Reporting Initiative recommends the use of
external assurance, although it isn’t required for compa-
nies declaring a reporting level (more about that later).
There are several sources of external assurance, including
professional assurance providers (such as public account-
ing firms), stakeholder panels, or other groups. KPMG
reports that most Fortune Global 250 (G250) companies
that use third-party assurance rely on a major accoun-
tancy organization, yet a majority of firms it surveyed for
its 2008 report didn’t use any form of external assurance.
Moreover, assurance rates are lowest in the United States
and Canada.
The number of G250/N100 companies that reported
formal assurance in their reports has increased in recent
years but was still just 40% in 2008.As of June 2009, 338
of the reports filed with the GRI had “+”with their appli-
cation level, indicating third-party assurance.Although
that’s only a third of the 1,002 reports filed since January 1,
2008, it represents 48% of the 701 reports filed with an
application level and 72% of the 285 reports at the A appli-
cation level. (Application levels provide an indication of
the extent to which sustainability reports employ GRI
guidelines. Levels include A, B, or C, with the aforemen-
tioned “+”for external assurance. Higher application levels
require additional disclosures and more performance
indicators.)
Johnson & Johnson currently does not declare a report-
ing level. Instead, its most recent SR includes an index
with reference to the G3 indicators cited within the
report. According to J&J’s Elizabeth Lascelle, the company
plans to eventually self-declare an application level with-
out third-party assurance. While external assurance
potentially increases the credibility and validity of SRs,
firms will only seek it when the net benefits exceed the
net costs. Johnson & Johnson avoids external assurance
because it finds the process very expensive and time-
consuming with no value added, at least from Brian
Boyd’s perspective. J&J sought formal assurance for an
earlier SR, but the process was so tedious that Boyd’s
office made the decision to stop the process three-fourths
of the way through.
Another option includes pursuing some form of exter-
nal assurance from stakeholder groups. Johnson & John-
son maintains frequent contact with many of these
groups (including investors, academics, consultants,
NGOs, and community organizations) in order to better
understand what the company needs to do to remain
socially and environmentally responsible. Currently, how-
ever, the company doesn’t ask these groups to provide any
assurance of the final SRs or of the reporting process
itself. This interaction simply helps J&J define its strategy
and goals to meet the needs of its stakeholders.
Role of Stakeholders and
Distribution of SRS
At Johnson & Johnson, stakeholders remain valued par-
ticipants in defining strategies, such as Healthy Planet
2010, which outlines the company’s major environmental
goals and improvement projects. Meanwhile, each year
J&J sends final, approved SRs electronically to all employ-
ees, with hard copies going to the board of directors, the
executive committee, and top senior managers world-
36 STRATEGIC FINANCE I September 2010
COVER STORY
wide. All self-identified “socially responsible”investors,
relevant governmental agencies, and competitors also
receive copies, as do other interested parties on request.
In addition, new and older reports are always available on
the Johnson & Johnson website.
Stakeholder feedback continues to shape J&J’s sustain-
ability reports. The introduction to the 2007 SR notes the
impact of feedback from employees and external partie
A Model for Sustainability Reporting  代寫s,
including NGOs, and from three external evaluations on
the format of the report. Based on data gathered from
these sources, Johnson & Johnson concluded that report
users typically want in-depth discussion about issues
important to them rather than having to read the reports
cover to cover. In response, the company modified its
2007 SR to provide more comprehensive coverage of key
issues.
It’s clear from the Johnson & Johnson experience with
sustainability reporting that there must be management
buy-in for the process to be successful. As we mentioned
earlier, sustainability reporting is entirely voluntary in the
United States and imposes additional costs on a firm, yet
the benefits may be intangible. Also, in the absence of
information, stakeholders will assume the worst.
Johnson & Johnson has found that for sustainability
reporting to be truly beneficial to the company, the data
needs to be driven by what the company wants to mea-
sure and manage, as well as by what external stakeholders
demand. A focused analysis of your stakeholders’ needs
should prove beneficial to enhancing your own firm’s
sustainability reporting. J&J’s reporting process provides
a shining example of the right way to proceed. SF
The authors gratefully acknowledge IMA’s Foundation for
Applied Research (FAR) for its support of this research project.
Susan C. Borkowski, Ph.D., is a Lindback Professor of
Accounting at La Salle University in Philadelphia and a
member of IMA’s Philadelphia Chapter. You can reach
Susan at (215) 951-1491 or borkowsk@lasalle.edu.
Mary Jeanne Welsh, Ph.D., is a professor and chair of
accounting at La Salle University and a member of IMA’s
Philadelphia Chapter. You can reach her at (215) 951-1883
or welsh@lasalle.edu.
Kristin Wentzel, Ph.D., is an associate professor of acco
A Model for Sustainability Reporting  代寫unt-
ing at La Salle University and a member of IMA’s Philadel-
phia Chapter. You can reach Kristin at (215) 951-5176 or
wentzel@lasalle.edu.
September 2010 I STRATEGIC FINANCE 37
For Further Reading
Here are a few resources about sustainability. You can
find many more on the Internet and on the IMA
website at www.imanet.org.
Laurie Brannen, “The Sustainability Reporting Evolu-
tion,” Business Finance, February 2007, p. 4.
Tom J. Brown and Peter A. Dacin, “The Company and
the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer
Product Responses,” Journal of Marketing, Novem-
ber 1, 1997, pp. 68-84.
Marc J. Epstein, Making Sustainability Work: Best
Practices in Managing and Measuring Corporate
Social, Environmental and Economic Impacts,
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, Calif.,
2008.
Lori Holder-Webb, Jeffrey R. Cohen, Leda Nath, and
David Wood, “The Supply of Corporate Social
Responsibility Disclosures Among U.S. Firms,”
Journal of Business Ethics, February 2009,
pp. 497-527.
Graham Hubbard, “Measuring Organizational Perfor-
mance: Beyond the Triple Bottom Line,” Business
Strategy and the Environment, December 2006,
pp. 177-191.
KPMG International Survey of Corporate Responsibility
Reporting 2008. Available at: http://www.kpmg.com/
CN/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Pages/
Corporate-responsibility-survey-200810-o.aspx.
Accessed August 6, 2010.
Karen Paul, “Corporate Sustainability, Citizenship and
Social Responsibility Reporting: A Website Study of
100 Model Companies,” The Journal of Corporate
Citizenship, December 2008, pp. 63-78.
Roger Simnett, Ann Vanstraelen, and Wai Fong Chua,
“Assurance on Sustainability Reports: An Interna-
tional Comparison,” The Accounting Review, May
2009, pp. 937-967.
Statement on Management Accounting, The Evolu-
tion of Accountability—Sustainability Reporting for
Accountants, IMA ® , Montvale, N.J., 2008.
Copyright of Strategic Finance is the property of Institute of Management Accountants and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
 

下一篇:沒有了

聯系加拿大作業代寫

QQ: 273427
QQ: 273427

加拿大作業代寫咨詢

/jianadazuoyedaixie代寫時間
全天接單不間斷

價格性感 質量豐滿
Copyright ? 2002-2012 悉尼論文代寫,墨爾本論文代寫,悉尼作業代寫.墨爾本作業代寫.

在線客服

售前咨詢
售后咨詢
微信號
Badgeniuscs
微信